Tampa woman sues employer over gun rules - Page 4
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Tampa woman sues employer over gun rules

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-25-2014, 11:57 PM   #31
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21697 Times on 12308 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

i think i will just keep any further opinions about this to myself out of fear some might think i am making assumptions about the events of this case.

done............

__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
wizard63 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 12:04 AM   #32
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 64
Liked 56 Times on 30 Posts
Likes Given: 133

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
The law can't, but as a business owner I can. I can set policy for my employees as a requirement for employment. For example, dress code, I can set policy that my employees look respectable, clean shaven, etc. As a customer I can't tell you to get out because you have bad breath or haven't shaved for a week, but I can sure tell my employee to get cleaned up or get out.
This has nothing to do with the story, the topic, the code section and sub-section I and another poster cited, or anything else I said. I and another poster cited a law, not a dress-code policy. The lady who lost her job and the people who gave her the reason will have to answer to that law, not a dress-code policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Deer View Post
Banks have the right to set up security procedures. Banks have a well thought out security procedure to get everyone home safely and cut losses to a minimum. The woman was trying to set up her own security procedures on her terms which is grounds for termination. This case has nothing to do with the gun in her car. The case is about a companies ability to establish safety protocol.

If she just had a gun in her car and remained silent there would be no lawsuit.
Actually, I think it's more like if the legislature had paid more attention in the way they used the English language in (4) 2(e), then there would be no lawsuit. As-written though, I think she does have one, unless now we're all supposed to be for activist judges who read and "interpret" whatever they want to read and interpret out of the legislative branch? I doubt anyone wants that in most cases, so why would they now?

And BTW, I just happened upon the sub-section while trying to understand the issues involved. I've already said I think property and/or business owners should be able to set gun policy for their own property/business. I just think that section gives her a leg to stand on. Not a moral or ethical one, a legal one, and sure we all know that legal has next to nothing to do with moral and ethical, right?
__________________
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
CzarChasm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 12:27 AM   #33
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,135
Liked 883 Times on 461 Posts
Likes Given: 465

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CzarChasm View Post
Actually, I think it's more like if the legislature had paid more attention in the way they used the English language in (4) 2(e), then there would be no lawsuit. As-written though, I think she does have one, unless now we're all supposed to be for activist judges who read and "interpret" whatever they want to read and interpret out of the legislative branch? I doubt anyone wants that in most cases, so why would they now?
790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.—


Yes the titling of that statute does mean something, it says right up front it pertains to motor vehicles which takes it out of any other realms.
__________________
mseric is online now  
Mason609 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 01:06 AM   #34
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
buckhuntr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sapulpa,Oklahoma
Posts: 2,035
Liked 728 Times on 451 Posts
Likes Given: 1733

Default

My employer does not allow employees to have weapons on company property (it's a bank, I work at the corporate headquarters). As someone previously mentioned, Oklahoma law forbids a company from preventing employees from having a legally owned firearm in the employee's car, even if on company-owned parking lot property, so my employer acknowledges that exception in its employee manual. We are in another state with a similar law, and those employees can also keep their guns in their personal vehicles.

I accept that the company owns or leases the premises, so they get to set the rules, as long as those rules do not conflict with state law. My gun stays in the car while I'm at work (limited access, patrolled lot), because I need the job. I don't like it, because downtown Tulsa isn't the safest place these days, and I have been accosted by panhandlers on my way to and from the parking lot, but I figure if I ever get mugged, then it's my turn for a lawsuit. My supervisor knows I have a permit and it doesn't bother her a bit.

__________________

"Well, we're all victims of our own gene pool. Someone must have peed in yours." - Walter Bishop, from Fringe.

"Then tell me this: Why would you want to hang around people that get uncomfortable, or even scared, about that kind of thing?" "Maybe to feel normal," I said. He laughed. "Normal's not all it's cracked up to be." "You think?" "Hell, I know." - from Spirits In The Wires, by Charles de Lint.

buckhuntr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 07:13 AM   #35
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,471
Liked 680 Times on 417 Posts
Likes Given: 3935

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CzarChasm View Post
This has nothing to do with the story, the topic, the code section and sub-section I and another poster cited, or anything else I said. I and another poster cited a law, not a dress-code policy. The lady who lost her job and the people who gave her the reason will have to answer to that law, not a dress-code policy.



Actually, I think it's more like if the legislature had paid more attention in the way they used the English language in (4) 2(e), then there would be no lawsuit. As-written though, I think she does have one, unless now we're all supposed to be for activist judges who read and "interpret" whatever they want to read and interpret out of the legislative branch? I doubt anyone wants that in most cases, so why would they now?

And BTW, I just happened upon the sub-section while trying to understand the issues involved. I've already said I think property and/or business owners should be able to set gun policy for their own property/business. I just think that section gives her a leg to stand on. Not a moral or ethical one, a legal one, and sure we all know that legal has next to nothing to do with moral and ethical, right?
Did you miss the part where she stated her decision to carry at work was so she "could protect against robbers" ?? Seems like it.

She knowingly violated more than 1 policy. Only 1 was mentioned in the article (that I've seen, anyway).

Activist judges are going to "interpret" gun laws to where they help penalize the gun owner - so, if an activist judge does "interpret" the actual law, it will be no different than a normal judge reading the actual law - she has no leg to stand on.
__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere

Mason609 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 07:42 AM   #36
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,831
Liked 1768 Times on 989 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason609 View Post
Did you miss the part where she stated her decision to carry at work was so she "could protect against robbers" ?? Seems like it.

She knowingly violated more than 1 policy. Only 1 was mentioned in the article (that I've seen, anyway).

Activist judges are going to "interpret" gun laws to where they help penalize the gun owner - so, if an activist judge does "interpret" the actual law, it will be no different than a normal judge reading the actual law - she has no leg to stand on.
There is really nothing for a judge to interpret here. No law in Florida covers her alleged right to carry inside a business. This falls more under case law decisions that so far lean toward protecting employer rights.

She's screwed. She knew the rules, she chose to break the rules, and like so many other morons out there, she is trying to blame someone else for the consequences of her own decisions. You're right. She has no case.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 05:36 PM   #37
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,493
Liked 2178 Times on 1187 Posts
Likes Given: 3323

Default

The lady lost her job and she will lose her lawsuit. She probably needs to get a new occupation as well. i can't see another bank hiring her.

__________________
alsaqr is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 06:20 PM   #38
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
rn-cindy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Working off the rent...on RGs farm S/W OhiO
Posts: 1,413
Liked 1259 Times on 694 Posts
Likes Given: 1923

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjd3282 View Post
How did they know she had a gun? Why didn't she just keep it in her purse and not tell anybody? It's one thing to violate a rule, it's just stupid to get caught. I don't blame her for carrying but she should have kept it to herself.
This......Hospital has a no gun policy. I have a not going to be a helpless victim policy...we get along just fine...
__________________

Don't follow me.....You won't make it.....


Last edited by rn-cindy; 03-02-2014 at 06:22 PM.
rn-cindy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
which are you? employee or employer? bobski The Club House 26 09-01-2013 11:49 AM
Employer superceding my 2A rights? KBlue Legal and Activism 34 06-07-2010 06:09 PM
Woman Sues Google for Bad Directions gregs887 The Club House 14 06-01-2010 09:52 PM
Why is it that a single woman is thinner then a married woman? opaww The Club House 4 05-31-2010 10:16 PM
can my employer really do this? spittinfire The Club House 14 06-17-2009 06:49 PM